Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale morphs into PCT Bob Tisdale

Sou | 5:04 PM Go to the first of 2 comments. Add a comment

Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale is known for his "magical sunlight-fueled" oceans causing global warming. Until today I'd not seen his much of his paranoid conspiracy theorist (PCT) side.

He's decided that NASA is plotting to make the world hotter. Plotting charts at least. He wrote:
In June 2014, the 1998-2013 trend was 0.062 deg C/decade, and a few months later, it jumped up to 0.066 deg C/decade.
The old short-term trend must not have been high enough. GISS must not like it that the UKMO’s HADCRUT4 data is catching up with them during this period. Can’t have that.
It has been said before. It will be said again. The adjustments always seem to add to global warming.

He adds a bit so he only looks half nuts and not quite completely nuts, writing:
PS: Yes, I realize we’re discussing a trends presented in thousandths of a deg C/decade. But these small changes keep coming and they add up.

And he's worried, so he's anxious that deniers are given a "reason" just in case 2014 becomes the hottest year on record without his El Nino to help him out. Bob wrote:
With the adjustments, 2014 has a better chance of matching or breaking records.
That explains it. 

About GISTemp data

If you want to know what adjustments GISS has made, look no further than the GISS adjustment page - here. Or for adjustments to December 2011, you can read them on this page. And if you want to know how the GISTemp analysis is conducted, the latest and very complete description was prepared by James Hansen back in 2010. You can access it and other related papers on the GISS website here.

GISS uses the NOAA/NCDC GHCN V3 data. These data are updated daily, as described here. The ReadMe file states:
The GHCNM v3 is reprocessed on a daily basis, which means as a part of that reprocessing, the dataset is reconstructed from all original sources. The advantage to this process is when source datasets are corrected and/or updated the inclusion into GHCNM v3 is seemless.  The following sources (more fully described in section 2.2.1) have the following overwrite precedance (sic) within the daily reprocessing of GHCNM v3 (e.g. source K overwrites source P) - G,0-9,U,P,K,C,M,J,N,W,Z

That means that the data are expected to change. Yes, even going way back in time.

If you still have questions, GISS has provided an FAQ page here.

The difference is miniscule

Let's compare previous GISTemp data with the latest to see just what Bob is complaining about. Click the chart to enlarge it.

Data source: NASA GISS

The above chart is comparing the annual data to April 2014 (from my records as reported in May 2014) with the annual data to June 2014 (from Bob's WayBack Machine records) and August 2014 (as just reported this September).  The period covered is 1880 to 2013.

The first thing you'll probably notice is that there is very little difference between the three versions.

The next thing you might notice is that the trend in the current version is indeed higher than in the April version (click the chart to enlarge it). It's steeper by 0.0001 degrees Celsius a year. But you might also notice that the latest version has the same slope as Bob's June version that he is complaining so strongly about.  The trends for the period 1880 to 2014 are:
  • April 2014 version - 0.0065
  • June 2014 version = 0.0066
  • August 2014 version = 0.0066.

Seriously? Bob Tisdale is complaining? In fact, Bob had to cherry pick his time period to get a difference in slope between his June 2014 version and this latest data. Here is the period that Bob selected - it's from 1998, a very hot year. Again, click the chart to enlarge it.

Data sourceNASA GISS

The trends for the period 1998 to 2013 are:

  • April 2014 version - 0.0060
  • June 2014 version = 0.0062
  • August 2014 version = 0.0066.

One thing I noticed is that going by the address link, it looks as if Bob's June version was a snapshot taken on 8 July. A few days later, on 14 July, GISTemp added in the missing May data from China and wrote:
July 14, 2014: The missing China May 2014 reports became available and are now part of our analysis. That correction increased the global May 2014 anomaly by a statistically insignificant 0.002 C.
That doesn't affect the above charts though. They are full year averages so they only go to 2013.

Oh No El Nino (so far)!

I think that Bob is getting very concerned because 2014 is shaping up as another hot year without the help of his sunlight-fueled El Nino. Not the hottest on record. If you compare the average temperatures from January to August in any year, 2014 is the fourth hottest for that period, after 2010, 1998 and 2007 in that order.

So far, looking at GISTemp, there have been two months this year that were the hottest for the month, namely August and May. January was the fourth hottest January. February was relatively cool. March was the third hottest March. May was the hottest May by a very long way. June was the third hottest June. July was relatively cool. August was the hottest August, just pipping August 2011.

GISTemp vs HadCRUT4

This article wouldn't be complete without comparing the two main global surface data series. I've plotted GISTemp with HadCRUT4, adjusting HadCRUT4 to make the baselines the same - 1951-1980. Click the chart to enlarge it so you can see the trend differences.

Data sourcesNASA GISS and UK Met Office Hadley Centre

They are not all that different in the early years but since the 1970s, GISTemp is mostly above HadCRUT4. The trends are slightly different. I haven't tested for significance.

  • HadCRUT4 = 0.0063
  • GISTemp = 0.0066

The difference is most likely in their coverage of the polar regions. Perhaps someone can comment on that. (Eg Cowtan and Way's analysis.)

From the WUWT comments

Given the conspiratorial mutterings of Bob Tisdale, WUWT fans responded in kind.

Unmentionable meekly asks:
September 15, 2014 at 10:07 am
Gee, I wonder why the adjustments never go down in any year?

 Jim G goes into a full-on paranoid conspiracy fantasy, including unemployment, wars, the media and of course the US government:
 September 15, 2014 at 10:32 amThey do adjust previous years downward to make the temperature trend look more upward. We have the worst bunch of liars running the US government that I have seen in my lifetime, by far. Inflation calculations have been adjusted to make inflation look small when by 1980’s standards it would presently be about 9.5%, unemployment/underemployment is much higher than reported due to all the folks no longer in the employment numbers, the propaganda outlets (news reports) do not tell us that most of the new job formation is part-time, low wage McJobs, GDP calculations ahve been changed and include items like government spending that make it look better and the list goes on and on. Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious, etc., etc.
The media outlets are heavily responsible for the lack of informed citizens in our country and unfortunately there are few to hold them accountable. Even Fox News falls down on the job not reporting the full story ie the effects of the fed’s open market operations on the markets or the rules of engagement which cause even conservatives to oppose troops on the ground when the goal of war should be to win, decisively, and it is not, and has not been since WWII.

dp subscribes to the conspiracy theory that it's all about money. Talk about projection!
September 15, 2014 at 12:30 pm
If they went down I’d suspect criminal intent. They go up because that is what is needed to attract government money.

Michael D proposes that scientists hide the incline:
September 15, 2014 at 10:23 am
Looks like its gone up about 0.07 deg C in 15 years. So many half a degree per century ? If they would plot this on a linear graph with absolute zero as the X-axis that would put it in perspective.

John Coleman, denier weather journalist is sad, not at Bob's desperate cherry pick, but because scientists report the science in a frank and fearless manner instead of hiding it from the public. He calls for a denialist media blitz to try to swamp facts under a pile of disinformation:
September 15, 2014 at 10:35 am
I am deeply saddened that our tax funded federal agencies, NOAA, NWS, NASA, are totally involved in the Climate Change scare campaign. Small and large actions are constantly building a federal foundation under this bad science. We mere citizens have little power to battle back. Thanks to all the great scientific minds that display the truth in posts and comments here on WUWT. I know many of you are posting on other websites as well. I really think the time has come to organize into a active, coordinated blitz email, letters, posts and cyber invasions on selected sites. Otherwise, I fear I will die among losers.

policycritic thinks a denier disinformation blitz attack is a grand idea and asks for addresses.
September 15, 2014 at 11:10 am
John, do you have a list of names to hit up? Emailing into the maw gets any effort deleted by hirelings, who are do-as-you’re-tolders hired to cull cranks and those who should be ignored. It’s a waste of time and resources. An email directed to a specific person should make it by the first cut. Since you are far closer to the biz and an insider, perhaps you could expand on this comment by saying who should be contacted by email and letter, and have Anthony put it up as a headline post.
I would be more than happy to write, but I am not going to waste two to three hours to have it deleted by a minimum-wager whose success depends upon pleasing the boss. I DO know that physical letters carry enormous weight; the logic is that someone must [really] give a damn to take the time. A well-written physical letter carries the weigh of 10,000 letter/opinions. The non-smoking sections in airplanes came about as a result of three letters.

J Lais is a gullible fake sceptic and asks the expert disinformers a question:
September 15, 2014 at 11:00 am
Are these adjustments cumulative in any sense? Ponzi schemes collapse under the weight of the constantly increasing payout required to keep the scheme afloat. Can they keep these small adjustments up forever, or could they reach a point where the departure from reality is too large to hide. Is there any way they are sowing the seeds of their own exposure and downfall? Can they tweak the satellite record or is that safe from manipulation?

Pamela Gray used to pretend (sometimes) to be educated. She's just another disinformer as shown by the fact that today she's pretending to be a conspiracy theorist of the paranoid kind.
September 15, 2014 at 8:30 pm
It used to be done with white-out and a straight edge. Now all you have to do is delete and re-enter the value you want, hit print and voilà! Global Warming!


  1. In his 2:07Pm comment, Tisdale wrote:
    "And, of course, there could have been changes to the GHCN data or the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data. We’ll know that in a few weeks."

  2. I just love this, from policycritic:

    Emailing into the maw gets any effort deleted by hirelings, who are do-as-you’re-tolders hired to cull cranks and those who should be ignored.

    Speaking from experience, obviously. policycritic knows what it's like to be considered a crank who should be ignored. The deniers aren't so good on the old self-assessment front, are they? You'd think they'd learn from their experiences.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.